Apparently they are referring to The Art of The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. The writer of the article is either badly informed or took a very free hand in interpreting his sources! Illustrations "recently discovered"? Far from it! Why do "experts" say that Tolkien borrowed heavily from his Roverandom pictures when illustrating The Hobbit, when he only adapted a single dragon? Roverandom was written after Tolkien himself (rather than son Michael) lost a toy dog? And then someone asks in the comments, why is the art in Oxford when The Hobbit was written in Leeds - which it wasn't! Save us from this kind of journalism (but buy our book! copies of which are now in the warehouse).